That's your interpretations, as flawed as they are.

So if the FAA is unconstitutional, as you allege, why hasn't this been taken up by the courts?

Surely your interpretation would stand up in a SC challenge, right?

I might find some agreement with that position, philosophically, BUT we have to live in the REAL WORLD. What color is the sky in Sonic Flyer land?

GF

Exactly. This thread started out as the OP not fully understanding Administrative Law.

For better or worse, the “original intent” horse left the barn long ago, with the Supreme Court holding the door open.

Thanks for your responses. I tend to agree with SonicFlyer and disagree with Rick..7777.

It's my understanding that as humans we are given inalienable rights such as the right to travel. Aviation falls within traveling. Licensing, medicals, etc. are generally used for commercial endeavors because banks and insurance companies rule the world. You would present an insurance liability if you commercially flew an airplane without a licensed pilot (for example).

My argument is that in order to serve in a Federal Administration, you are usually required to swear an oath to the Constitution and the Constitution requires due process. I would imagine that due process would therefore, need to be followed in Administrative agencies. Correct? It appears that administrations like the FAA do things arbitrarily, which would be a violation of oath.

With that being said, no one has given me any examples of what past pilots have done in the past in regards to remedy, besides a lawsuit.

You have "studied law for several years" and this is your understanding?

Where is this "oath" that FAA personnel must "swear?" Is this secretly done on a stack of bibles, perhaps under a windsock at night, near an unlit runway?

Due process?

In those several years, you never learned what administrative law is? Do you not understand the regulation?

Do you not know the basis behind the FAA's authority, or mission?

Do you know what an act of congress is?

"Violations of oath?" Did you actually read that somewhere, or just make that up?

The FAA "makes things up arbitrarily?" Really? Do you have any idea of the extent of the rule making process? Have you never taken the time to comment on a notice of proposed rule making? Every one is published for public comment in the Federal Register, and routinely the FAA crafts regulatory changes largely on industry and individual input. In fact, when the final rule is published, it includes a thorough explanation of the purpose and reason behind the regulation, the input from all concerned parties, and the reasons that the regulation has been established in consideration of that input.

As for the issue of the FAA undertaking enforcement action, there is a clear process set up and spelled out by the Administrator regarding what is done and the steps taken to appeal it. There's nothing arbitrary about it.

If you're concerned with recouping income loss following FAA enforcement action, you can certain try; get a good attorney and have a lot of money. It's your right to tilt at windmills. Such efforts come with no guarantee.

I have been through the process twice in the past three decades; each time successfully. When I say successfully, that means I received letters from the FAA regional counsel stating that there was nothing to support the attempted administrative action, which would seem a vindication. The same letter went on to state that had I done what I was accused of doing, it would be a violation of the regulation, and accordingly, the letter of warning would be placed in my file for a period of two years. It's the Administrator's way of firing a shot across the bow, and using it to harm your career for 24 months at a time...and an extended period thereafter...and no, there's really not much one can do about it.

And as others have noted, it is a privilege. NOT a right. Your appeal for certificate action is to neither a civil court nor a criminal one, but to an Administrative Law Judge.

Actually it's not flawed, it is historical. I've studied law and history as a serious hobby for about 10 years.


No because since the late 1800s and early 1900s the lawyers in this country are (incorrectly) trained to base everything on precedent, or stare decisis as opposed to the actual meaning of the original written text (which is the proper way).

This means that if an incorrect or faulty ruling is made it will likely stay there forever unless the SCOTUS overturns it... including if the SCOTUS made the ruling. But they are highly unlikely to rule against themselves.

And yet you know nothing about administrative law.

Which is irrelevant here.

You know, of course, that there are three sources for understanding the regulation, correct? One is the regulation itself. Another is FAA Chief Legal Counsel letters of interpretation (also given as legal opinions). Another, and perhaps the best for gaining a more indepth understanding of the meaning AND intent of the regulation, is the Federal Register Preamble to the publishing of the final rule when a regulation is made or changed.

While it's of interest and sometimes useful to review appeal cases of enforcement action, those are not binding on FAA action, nor do they dictate the outcome of subsequent enforcement action or appeal.

Sounds like you've been studying the wrong law, if you have questions regarding the FAA.

The supreme court certainly does review and revisit previous rulings, but that's irrelevant in this case.

You may be barking up the wrong tree.

And, when the administrative appeals are finished, the next level of appeal is the US Court of Appeals where, for the most part, they die.

If the two “armchair lawyers” took one, just ONE, business law course; you two would not be displaying ignorance and arrogance here. Administrative Law is a pretty basic undergrade business course. Here’s a start:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...nistrative_law

GF

Why surely Sonic Flyer’s skies are criss-crossed with CHEMTRAILS, no doubt.


(Although the sneaky government continues to deny the chemtrail program, he’ll get to proving it after he abolishes the FAA.)

;-)